|
Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
1984-1993 Saleen Mustang For the Fox platform Saleen Mustang. Be sure to specify year, model and equipment if asking for help. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Saleen/Alcon calipers, rotors & SN-95 spindle upgrade?
Hello to all! I have a set of Alcons on my car and I have a problem stopping. I changed the master cylinder and booster to a 93 cobra I have baer rotors as well.I also changed to 1995 spindles. I was thinking about getting some Alcon rotors off of a 99 Saleen. If I get these rotors will I have to change the spindles to 1996 and up as well? Please help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
1993 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What rear brakes are you using? If you have Alcons up front and a properly matched rear system you should have no trouble stopping. Something is amiss.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I have the stock rear brakes.
__________________
1993 |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Do you have, or did you check the bias adjuster?
__________________
Storing sweet black rides in wsm members garages all across the USA! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I have no bias adjuster, I'm not even sure what that is. Oh! You mean a proportioning valve...yes I have one and it is adjusted for the rear brakes to lock up right before the front.
__________________
1993 Last edited by 93LEENEN; 06-28-2011 at 06:57 PM. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Heres what they say, "Do not install a 1996-04 spindle on a 1979-93 or 1994-95 Mustang fitted with a stock-geometry k-member! Doing so will significantly increase bumpsteer because...
http://www.maximummotorsports.com/st...pindle_warning
__________________
1995 S-351 #77 Featured in November 03 5.0 magazine. 1995 S-351 #58 14"Alcons, T-1 race wing. 1993 #82 The last Calypso |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Call Doug at Streetwise. www.streetwiseparts.com The 96-04 rotors are a different offset because of the caliper not because of the spindle. As S351Saleen77 mentioned the stock 94-04 rotors are the same so the mounting points for the stock calipers didn't change. You'll need to find 94-95 rotors to fit your application if you do have 94-95 Calipers. Check with Doug to see what you can get. If you have the part numbers on the calipers he can tell you what you have and need.
The Maximum Motorsport site is speaking in generic terms and the "most common denominator" for modifications. My 88 GT ran 96-04 spindles with stock geometry EXCEPT Steeda X2 balljoints which raise the spindle 1/2" relative to the chassis. In other words the spindle gets moved up in the wheel well 1/2" with all other suspension parts staying the in their original locations before the X2 install. Here's a pic of it on the ground. The red line is level to the ground. Note that the tie rod end is going up and I'm using a bump steer kit to bring it down to try to make it level. If you really want to get scientific you need to set the spacers in the bump steer kit by modulating the suspension with a laser on the end of the spindle and markers on the wall to set the bump steer curve. The bump steer kit on my 88 made me much more confident driving it because it didn't dart anywhere while going over a bump. So, you can make 96-04 spindles on a 79-95 and I actually prefer them because the strut mounting angle was changed. Outside of the steering arm being an issue on most Fox setups it is a better spindle. The track width is another argument but you're looking at an 8mm increase over a stock 87-93 and only 4mm or so on the 94-95. Contrary to popular belief the 94-95 does increase the track width some. My 88 wore every Maximum suspension piece except the K member. Pan hard bar, torque arm and coil overs among others. They are the best in the business in my opinion. If I were going to build the ultimate Fox Saleen corner carver it would wear all their parts. But, their online advice doesn't apply to every setup. It's best to call them and talk it through in detail on your particular setup. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
93LEENEN,
I called Baer 2 times in the past asking about their rotors and they didn’t know that 94-95 had a different offset and they said they knew that they worked on the newer cars, so if you are running Baer rotors with Alcon calipers I would think you should have the newer calipers. Yes the 94-95 rotors are different because of the offset of the calipers. A couple years ago Streetwise didn’t have the rotors but now I see they do ($995). But the spindles will work that you have now. On the spindles I would stay with the 94-95 you have now assuming you have a stock K member. Ford lowered the steering rack to make room for the modular engines in 1996 that’s why they lowered the tie rod mounting point on the spindle for 1996 -up. And if your tires are close to the fender lip you will be moving them out even more which may or may not cause rubbing. Bob, When I have had my alignments done on different cars with bumpsteer kit’s by shops that were known for doing this (one of the shops is a Griggs racing distributor along with Maximum Motorsports and have done many installs and have been in 5.0 Magazine for tech articles) my tie rods seem higher than yours, and they could have put the spacers on to lower the tie rods more but didn’t. Heres my MM tie rod end that was on a fox Saleen with stock Saleen specific rate springs, Steeda X2 ball joints, and 94-95 spindles. It’s not adjusted all the way down and it’s starting almost 1” higher than a car with 96-up spindles. A car with 96 up spindles could not get the tie rod in the same spot even with it adjusted all the way up as high as it could go. I will have to see how my 93 looks when I get it aligned.
__________________
1995 S-351 #77 Featured in November 03 5.0 magazine. 1995 S-351 #58 14"Alcons, T-1 race wing. 1993 #82 The last Calypso |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Tom, that would make sense on your setup compared to mine because the 94-95 steering arm is curved up about 1" on the 94-95's. I want to say mine was set up the same way. 1 small and large spacer up top and a large spacer on the bottom. So I had plenty of movement above and below the arm.
I'm definitely not challenging MM's statements. I'm saying that it's not always cut and dried. My car was set up by an MM certified shop. Blue Oval Classics did the work and an AI champion racer owns and runs it. Beau Dunnivant is an awesome driver and fabricator. MM sends him their test parts for racing. He gets setups before anyone knows about them. I got to see a few goodies when he was working on my car. We did chat about the spindles and tie rods. It has always been my understanding that you want the tie rods to be parallel to the ground or just slightly above that. If you set the bump steer curve then that's about where it will fall. If it is angled up or down compared to the steering rack then it is likely that the tire will turn when going over a bump. I had quite a few conversations with Jack Hidley, MM's lead engineer, about my chassis setup. He posts on the main line mustang message boards and at Corner Carvers. That's where I did a ton of research. I even have the Ford CAD drawings of the SN95 spindles and Fox spindles in one drawing laid over each other to show the differences in them. The centerline is the balljoint in them so it is cool to see how it affects the suspension mounting points. Ford engineers frequent that board with priceless info. This is one thing that I want to use on #4. A good bump steer kit. Last edited by SA10#04; 07-04-2011 at 09:41 PM. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I forgot about this thread! After installing the bumpsteer kit on my 93 without the X2's they did have to raise it back up, since they had to lower it with the X2's on my 89. The set up I had in the pic was with X2's and 94-95 spindles. If I had 96-up spindles which have 1" lower the tie rod mounting they would have been adjusted all the way up and still wouldn't quite be the 1" higher. There wasn't a full inch left to raise it by taking out all the spacers, but it would have been close.
So now my ends are in the spot where the 96 up spindle arms would be. Just like MM says. So if I had 96 up spindles the tie rods would be too low. If I remeber right I had .010" of toe change on bump compressing the suspension. I remember they said that minimizing toe change in the first inch of bump travel is most important and reducing the amount of toe change in bump is more important than in droop. They wanted less than .020 per in. I would think that if you run the 96 up spindles you do need the X2 balljoints to raise the spindle back up. Without them the tie rod would be too low.
__________________
1995 S-351 #77 Featured in November 03 5.0 magazine. 1995 S-351 #58 14"Alcons, T-1 race wing. 1993 #82 The last Calypso |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|